18
Linux for a 2006 Asus laptop
(lemmy.zip)
Whether you're a seasoned pro or the noobiest of noobs, you've found the right place for Linux support and information. With a dedication to supporting free and open source software, this community aims to ensure Linux fits your needs and works for you. From troubleshooting to tutorials, practical tips, news and more, all aspects of Linux are warmly welcomed. Join a community of like-minded enthusiasts and professionals driving Linux's ongoing evolution.
sata is not supported. let alone ssds. do you know even the slightest thing about hardware??? and yes, i need a gui. Also, 4gb ram back then was a lot, like 64 gb today
Don't be snotty. Perhaps it's you who doesn't know? Read on. I've gone the distance in refurbishing old laptops. This project is likely to be $100, maybe less depending on what we find. If you can't spend anything, whew, going to be hell.
I've put a SATA drive in a 486SX from 1999. Adapters exist. No, you won't get top speed, but it beats hell out of an HDD.
Update the BIOS first! That can make or break upgrades. Never had an ASUS, worked on plenty, they seem pretty solid on that count.
Look up "max RAM" for that exact model. That can be a real limitation, but I'd bet you could cram at least 4GB, if not 8GB. And remember, manufacturer specs can often be exceeded. Check ASUS, then see what people have said in forums. I've doubled what the maker says is possible many, many times.
Can't speak to a distro, but you need to get an SSD in there and boost the RAM before even bothering.
BTW, any chance that CPU is socketed, removable? I've had great success replacing CPUs in old laptops. Upgrades can be hilariously cheap on eBay. Cheap as in, $10 for a far better chip. Send me the exact model and we'll look.
While we're at it, a new battery is probably cheap, like $20. But that goes in last.
cpu is not removeable. only a few slots are unscrewable on the laptop, propably the battery, ram, storage slots. but i can't find a working screwdriver rn. I meant that you don't know my hardware, it is worse than you think. I had bad luck with adapters, even my 2019 gamer laptop couldn't boot from a hdd using usb-sata adapter, it doesn't even worth to try on a cheap 2006 laptop. Only thing i could get is a bigger pata/ide drive. I looked some up on hardverapro.hu (basically craigslist in hungary), they are rare and doesn't worth the money. Only ram could worth it to upgrade, but first i need a screwdriver
SATA started rolling out in drive around 2003/2004, it's possible. My 08 laptop had a Sata ssd.
Just throw Arch/ Alpine on it with sway. If you need a full DE, LXQT is pretty light weight but even plasma is not too expensive tbh.
i'd rather burn it than install ANY kde on that. Arch can get into consideration, maybe. Alpine not because i don't hate myself enough to use non-gnu linux. This is a 2006 laptop, and not a high-end one. 40 gb hdd. I'm sure as hell it isn't sata. Sata only started appearing around 2010 in systems that were affordable for a mortal human
SATA was definitely around before 2010 in consumer hardware. Nonetheless, Alpine is a great distribution and gnu software is packaged for it and freely available. I believe it is busybox by default.
It is musl, but in my experience that's not much of an issue.
Have you had problems with KDE in the past? I typically use i3 but the QT framework is great.
kde is not a problem on high-end hardware. But recommending for this laptop is batshit insane. The fact that you use i3 explains a lot. That's much more lightweight than kde
What's wrong with non-GNU Linux? I'm using Alpine with Gnome DE on my old laptop (3rd generation Core i3, 4GB RAM). It feels much faster than Linux Mint Cinnamon.
extremely hard to use. I could install netBSD and Arch, used Tumbleweed, but any non-gnu Linux is beyond me
It's just a guess, you never did tell us what specific model Asus you have there.
Not that you're curious but the model I have here is a Asus F8S which seems to be closer to 2008 era e.g. https://www.newegg.com/black-asus-f8-series-f8sn-d1/p/N82E16834220331?srsltid=AfmBOorI8VyoX35T6xRUD0e-Mbg1Q6IFui9Xgy6RlsB2sLLhfuFvIePr
In 2008 laptops did have SATA connections. I have in fact plugged in SATA SSDs into old laptops and desktops from that era and earlier. I doubt 3 years is too much difference but again, no idea on the specific hardware you're looking at so maybe your specific laptop is one of the last generation that was ATA only, not SATA (?)
Yes granted 3 years earlier 4GB would have cost more for sure. 1GB RAM is the bare minimum for Windows 7 Home 32-bit so I guess this thing you have was already at the bare minimum.
The rest of my comment still stands, it will work perfectly fine as a Linux server with CLI only though that's not quite the answer you want.
EDIT: The CPU you've got is 64-bit capable I believe https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/29733/intel-celeron-m-processor-530-1m-cache-1-73-ghz-533-mhz-fsb-socket-m/specifications.html
So the laptop should have been spec'd for 2GB RAM minimum normally. Thinking you're not reading the full RAM correctly e.g. if in Windows maybe run CPU-Z or similar to actually see what the full RAM and individual RAM sticks claim to have.
I think it's likely that the 1.2gb is usage RAM, with 2GB being total size
1.25 is the total installed. Do you really think i'm so dumb?
the sole reason i didn't tell which laptop is this that i even don't know myself. something asus, from late 2006.
not the F8S. mine is older and weaker and thicker. yes, 3 years is a big difference.
it came with windows xp, but we installed win7 in 2014. even then, security was more important, but it really didn't serve the hardware's intrest. it has 64 bit ein7 home premium, totally unusable, freezes every minute for 10 minutes at least. Yes, the cpu is 64 bit capable, i didn't think about installing a 32 bit system, these are rolled out nowadays. If 64 bit is possible, i have to go with that. I ran msinfo32, i doubt that would report false info. 1.25 gb ram. I could imagine that in late 2006, for a midrange consumer laptop